ML20235N853

Comment Supporting Chapter 1 Re Policy Statement on Exemptions Below Regulatory Concern.Policy Development for Criteria for Release of Radioactive Matl Needed for Development of Consistent Waste Mgt Practices

ML20235N853
Person / Time
Site:	Surry, North Anna, 05000000
Issue date:	02/14/1989
From:	Cartwright W VIRGINIA POWER (VIRGINIA ELECTRIC & POWER CO.)
To:	NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY)
References
FRN-53FR49886, RULE-PR-CHP1 53FR49886-00176, 53FR49886-176, 88-835, NUDOCS 8903020003
Download: ML20235N853 (11)

Text

'

l 10C"lii!CU S! d f ncP0:E0 ?.UE - n /m /g ,

C3 FR H Ec86 IROINIA ELECTRIC AN

\

POWER COMPANY ,.

RictrMonn,VinornrA 20261 h-

w. n. car == war '89 FEB 17 P3 :04 VAC E PRESIDENT xm n. February 14, 1989

[Jbbd Secretary Serial No.88-835 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission N0/HP/MR0:074L Washington, D. C. 20555 Docket No. 50-280 Attention: Docketing and Service 8 ranch 50-281 50-338 50-339 License Nos. DPR-32 DPR-37 NPF-4 NPF-7 Gentlemen:

VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY COM1ENTS ON NRC PROPOSED POLICY STATEMENT ON EXEMPTIONS FROM REGULATORY CONTROL Virginia Electric and Power Company has reviewed the NRC's proposed statement, Policy Statement on Exemptions From Regulatory Control. We submit the attached comments on the proposed statement for your consideration.

Should you need additional information or explanation of these comments, please feel free to call.

Very trulyn/ youps,l W. R. Cartwright Attachment o0@

09030g&eeee6 eDR en0 DS/6

COMENTS ON NRC POLICY STATEMENT ON EXEMPTIONS FROM REGULATORY CONTROL GENERAL COP 99ENTS Virginia Electric and Power Company strongly supports the development of a policy on exemptions from regulatory control for practices involving extremely small quantities of radioactive material from which health and safety impacts could be considered below regulatory concern (BRC).

Current regulations provide criteria for release of radioactive materials to unrestricted areas for gaseous and liquid effluent pathways.  ;

Similarly, a policy on the appropriate criteria for the release of radioactive material is needed for the development of consistent waste management practices and preservation of licensed low-level waste disposal facility volume capacities.

The development of criteria based on establishing a level of exposure which has negligible risk when compared to other societal risks is encouraged. Criteria developed should not be so trivial that justification, or demonstration of compliance, cannot reasonably be achieved. Adoption of a policy of exemptions could result in a reduction of public risks. For example, the establishment of BRC criteria for radwaste could result in both a reduction in transportation accident risks and transportation wot Ker exposure because of fewer long range radwaste shipments to licensed low-level waste disposal sites.

MR0/pb:074L SPECIFIC COPMENTS The following comments are in direct response to specific questions raised in the advance notice of proposed statement and meeting published in the Federal Register on December 12, 1988. Virginia Electric and Power Company appreciates the opportunity to respond to the questions posed but feels many of the questions are ambiguous. The following responses to the the Commission's questions are provided with the purpose and assumption that the questions are directed to the operation of a nuclear power station and that the -practices are the disposal or unrestricted release of slightly contaminated material (e.g., trash, sewage sludge, soil, waste oil, tools, equipment, and spent ion exchange resins).

FR: As lower levels of radiation exposure are projected, should lower levels of benefit be required for justification of a practice which is a candidate for exemption?

1 COMMENT:

Yes, lower levels of benefit should be acceptable as a criteria for exemptions as lower levels of radiation exposure are projected. However, the development of a generic policy for practices which are below regulatory concern should first establish a level of exposure which has negligible risk.

MR0/pb:374L FR: 'In establishing . exemption policy, .should the Comission exclude certain. practices for which there appears ..to .be no reasonable justification?

COMMENT:

Yes, practices for which there appears to be no reasonable justification should not be approved in general. If a listing of typical practices which are not justifiable could be provided, this would assist licensees;'and if not a list, then a set of criteria by which 'a licensee could test a proposed practice for being reasonable.

FR: In considering proposals for exemption, should the Comission evaluate social acceptability of the p'.actice?

COMMENT:

The social acceptability of the overall concept of BRC has been approved and endorsed by Congress through passage of the low-level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985. The Act addresses disposal of wastes termed BRC that would not need to be subject to regulatory control to assure adequate protection of the public health and safety because of their radioactive content. The goal is for the Comission to determine, through rulemaking, when wastes need not go to a licensed disposal ilte. The Comission should consider social acceptabf). y .f those practices where economical non-radioactive alternatives

[

exist in keeping with the ALARA principle.

MR0/pb:074L _- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ __ __ -____-_-__

71 i :,:

1 FR: Should the -Commission determine a practice to be' unjustified if j nonradioactive economical alternatives exist?

l COMMENT:

The Commission should reserve the right, and' state so in the- rulemaking, that if a nonradioactive' economical alternative exists, a practice may not be approved or exempted.

FR: Is the 10 mrem /yr criterion proposed by the Commission appropriate?-

COMMENT:

The 10 mrem /yr limit appears reasonable. Other exposure criteria should also be considered for generic applica-tions with appropriate documentation and justification.

FR: Is the appropriateness of this number affected by the decision regarding whether a collective dose criterion should be used with the individual dose criterion?

COMMENT:

No, the individual dose criterion should stand on its own merits. If a collective dose criterion is either adopted or not should be independent of individual dose. Assuming a collective dose is adopted, depending on the exposure pathways determined, either individual or collective dose would be determined to be limiting and appropriate methods implemented to ensure compliance.

MR0/pb:074L . . _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ ,

i FR: Should the individual dose criterion be chosen on the basis of L negligible risk as is done internationally (i.e., IAEA Safety Series No. 89) or can a somewhat higher number be used based on a Commis-sion policy decision regarding a level of individual risk for which expenditure of resources is not warranted?

The individual dose criteria should be selected based on the level of individual risk for which expenditures of resources is not warranted. The individual risk should be determined from the risk currently accepted by the public.

FR: How important is international consistency in choosing an individual dose criterion?

COMMENT:

If an international acceptance of an individual dose criterion could be accomplished, it would provide for a wider acceptance of the value. In the event that international acceptance is not obtained, the Commission should expeditiously arrive at a value based on its own judgment and the evidence available and opinions expressed.

FR: Is a collective dose criterion needed in addition to an individual dose criterion?

MR0/pb:074L pJ t'

b COMMENT: . .

'No. However, if a collective dose criterion is determined to be appropriate, certain exceptions should be. included l into the rulemaking. In particular, J ff the practice is disposal of waste (removed from normal public access), 'it should be excepted from collective dose criterion. -If radioactive material will be released from regulatory.

l. control and be intentionally incorporated into a specific 1

product for public" distribution, then it ^ may 'be appropriate to subject the practice to collective dose criterion.

FR: If so, what is the basis of that need?

COMMENT:

As addressed in the previous comment, there should be no need for the appilcation of collective- dose criterion to practices in which the public has limited access.

Otherwise, if large numbers of members of the public would be reasonably subjected to dose created under the provisions of the rulemaking, an upper limit on collective dose from such sources may be appropriate, and should be part of the evaluation submitted by the Itcensee seeking the exemption.

FR: If the Commission decides a collective dose criterion should be used, what should its magnitude be?

MR0/pb:074L _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -

COMMENT:

The collective dose criterion should be determined by considering the population of the United States, existing natural background, and the variability in natural back-i ground. A collective dose criterion could be calculated by taking a small percentage of the nutural background collective dose based on regional variability. The sum of all exempted practices should be within this criterion. I FR: What alternative to a collective dose criterion should be considered i

for assessing societal impact?

COMMENT:

Addressing societal impact of collective radiation expo-i sure should be a separate issue apart from the proposed rulemaking. Only individual doses should be addressed for ,

1 the purpose of assessing impact, as this would be .

consistent with past practices.

l FR: In calculating collective dose, what approaches allowing truncation of individual doses or the use of weighting factors for components of collective dose are appropriate?

COMMENT:

Truncation of dose should be allowed with very trivial doses to large populations. Development of weighting factors for population age distribution, natural MR0/pb:074L _ -_--- _

background in the area, genetic effects, cancer producing effects, etc._ is very complex. The effort required for their development is not justified.

FR: Is the approach of generally limiting individual doses from each source or practice to a fraction of the overall limit appropriate?

COMMENT:

Yes, by generally limiting individual doses to a value of about 10 mrem / year when the overall limit is 100 mrem / year is appropriate in providing adequate assurance that the overall limit will not be exceeded from multiple sources.

FR: Although most exempted sources would be expected to involve individ-ual doses which are a small fraction of the overall limit, should flexibility be maintained by considering exempting on a cost-benefit basis above 10 mrem /yr?

COMMENT:

Yes. If a Ifcensee has a valid need for the exemption, provision should be provided to address these on a case-by-case basis. An acceptable alternative would be to not make provision in the proposed rulemaking and let such situations be covered under the provisions of current policy and regulations.

1 1

MR0/pb:074L i

1 j

.FR: Is the evaluation of collective' dose important in considering the multiple exposure issue?

COMMENT:

Consider the multiple exposure issue separate from collec-tive dose. If collective dose is evaluated (that is all dose to all- individuals due to all exemptions) multiple exposures would automatically be included in the determi-nation of the collective dose. Multiple exposure evalua-tions would address the overall risk to an individual ,

l regardless of collective dose results. Collective dose '

evaluations would address the overall risk to a popula-tion irrespective of individual exposure.

FR: Will the application of justification of practice help to maintain a smaller number of sources making it easier to control overall exposure?

d COMMENT:

This statement is true if it is assumed that some Itcensees either can not or will not justify a practice and therefore will not engage in the practice. Realisti- I cally, such exposure, which would not be justified, could be expected to contribute a very small fractton of the dose. The application of justification shcald not be expected to be a primary method to control overall expo-sure.

1 1

MR0/pb:074L _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ - -

l l

FR: How important is monitoring to maintaining assurance that individual 1

'I exposure do not exceed to the overall limit?

1 COMMENT:

Appropriate monitoring to demonstrate comp 1tance with i

regulations involving the release of radioactive material '

should be considered essential. The provision of 10 CFR 20.201 " Surveys" would appear to provide - the necessary requirements to address this subject.

MR0/pb:074L .___-_________ _ _ _ _ -_-_- - -